Of the resurrection of the caliphate, the islam istate and if you die you will be rewarded. Fascism, maoism, up ultra right and ultraleft, appeal to particular most of to the young men and women are in search or identity. In search of an anchor, and isis provide them with a potent identity. A potent identity that gives them purpose in life, adventure, recklessness. Take oomar mateen. When i listened to his father, his father said i had given him the best education in america, the best occasion in america. And this tells you a great deal. He is a middle class. Their all most of them are guest so we have the middle class, advantaged areas, educated. Its a complex phenomenon but really there is one particular shared threat, is the idea of a utopia, the idea that both an identity, the idea they want to belong to a movement that gives them purpose in life, and this really has allowed isis to not only take the attacks in paris and belgium. The units led by adnani. Who is responsible for the external operation, yet the attack in california and ore lap deare homegrope radicalized individuals who basically are radicalized through social media and the rhetoric of isil. There is no single factor that accounts for the the of young men and women to this movement called isis. Thank you so muff. And fawaz, i want to congratulate you on your book and say this book is the best book ever written about isis so far because it goes far beyond its strategy, its military strategy. It talks about its ideology in great depth. Talk about the Historical Context in the middle east that led to isis with is very important which few people understand. It talks be 0 to in agree the u. S. Responsibility and talked about baghdadi and we cant get to cover that, but theres a lot of material about who he is and the conflicting stories about him and how theres no real information about him. So, fawaz, thank you so much. Guest thank you for having me. And congratulations on your book. Guest thank you. Our next guest is karen greenberg. Hi, karen, another great book i see, Rouge Justice. The page of the Security State. What do you me by the term Rouge Justice . That the term i gave to the way in which the mechanisms that are supposed to keep us safe from interference from the state is supposed to protect the constitution, went off at the rails of 9 11 and have failed to really come back. So i call it Rouge Justice because its out of control, outside the bounds of the law, and it seems like a rouge element compared to what we expected and were used to. Guest you. You have a lot of very emotional and vivid quotes throughout the book. Know you love going to court and watching all these proceedings, especially when it comes to terrorism. Why did you include them in the book and why do you focus on National Security court versus other courts . Guest the book is really about what happened in the realm of National Security. And there have been people who have proposed National Security courts but i wanted to see what goes on inside the courtroom because thats where the issues of guilt and innocence, where the issues of the power of the law, are most clearly shown and demonstrated, and its actually fascinating to watch the difficulties that courts have with National Security cases, and thats why wanted to go. Theres all this talk about can our courts try terrorist. We cant tried the 9 11 terrorists. Havent tried one yet in 15 years. So, years ago i started going court to see does a terrorism prosecution look like and ive been to many states, many different districts to see how what the narrative of the defense is, what the narrative of the prosecution is, and how it changed over time. And i think its important for the American People to understand that there are nuances to this cases and theyre not all the same and an entire spectrum of those who are accused of watching to plot and found with evidence, like the subway bomber in new york, to whosor as separational and i want to see how the cases played out differently and there if was a way in which justice could be described as not rouge. One of the big takeaways from the book is that the courts were like a deer in the headlights when it came to National Security cases. And there are a whole realm of cases. Surveillance about overreaching by the government. There are some secret court cases for the fisa court, a classified court exterrorism prosecutions, prosecutions over foia hearings over foia requests, and so theres a whole realm of cases that we need to look at to see how the courts deal with National Security, and time after time after time, many of the judges, many of the important judges in important jurisdictions have said, its National Security, we dont want a part of it. Were not equipped to think about it. The president told us this person is an enemy combatant and they need the surveillance powers whether or not we get to constitutional issue. The president told us we need to have this kind of foia request denied, whatever it is, and i wanted to see what the substance of this was and how the judges interacted with the lawyers and for the most part many of them just took a back seat. And by the time they got engaged and interested, it was too late. So its interesting you. Said the courts and judges, i think the tomorrow you just used, were like a deer in the headlight. But federal courts was always used to prosecute National Security cases from big spies to the terrorists. The east african bombers, for example, were prosecuted in federal court, many spies, cia and nyi spies and different big National Security cases are also prosecuted in federal court. So the court has a lot of experience and precedence in delling with it. Why after nine it was different . Guest a really good question and i want ode to try toy figure out. Why was there shyness in the face of these prosecutions. So i think one of the easy reasons is that there werent a lot of courts that did National Security cases. Southern district of new york and the Eastern District o virginia that had done spying and National Security cases and were comfortable with classified evidence. But as you began to expand that outwards and had 400 prosecutions in states across the nation, where could you get the jumps that would actually feel like they had the competence to weigh in on this . And as a result of this, the National Security in part the National Security division was established at the department of justice for the purpose of being able to manage, oversee, make consistent the argument that were used in and Legal Framework used to prosecute the indicates bus took a longtime, and in taking a long time there became a lot of political backlash to lets not use the courts. Thats one of the stat thus to goes that happened, sense in the halls of d. C. , the halls of congress, that courts werent up to the task. They are up to the task and were up to the task, and by the way, compared again to the 9 11 trial, who could have taken this long to try any trial within a federal court system . So i agree with you theyre up to the task it bet let me also say many other jurisdictions are now up to the task. For example, the Eastern District of new york. The brooklyn courthouse, has done numerous terrorism trials since 9 11, and is now one of the leading if not the leading court in this regard. Even district of virginia has had many more terrorism cases in addition to spy case, since 9 11. The d. C. Court, same thing. And its you have the tsarnaev case in boston. Showily and surely your getting courts more confident apple with the issue but has taken a long time and the scariness factor of would somebody get acquitted, and it has just set things off course from the very beginning. This takes me to something that is at the beginning of your book, with attorney general eric holder, giving the case for the 9 11 defendants to the military, and transferring it to guantanamo bay. I the think he was very reluctant to do so but its interesting you start your book with that throughout the book you go back to the scene again and again and again. What is the importance of that specific scene and that specific decision and what kind of impact eric holders decision was sending the cases to guantanamo bay, and the Chilling Effect on the federal courts. Guest a realun fortunate and unhappy moment for the american judicial system, and eric holder conveyed that. He basically said, when he said theyre going back to military commissions at guantanamo instead of being tried in manhattan federal court, what he said was, look, i believe our courters are up to this task. I dont believe for a minute this is how it should be, but congress has taken the decision out of my hands by making it impossible to bring goon detainees for the country for any reason, including prosecution. One of the original emphasises for writing this book was a memo to air holder basically it wasnt congress that did this to you. It was ten years of deference by the court to this idea of the National Security state, and after ten years, its not Just Congress that is able to do this. Its the fact that courts are not saying, here we, how many prosecutors came down on the side of congress . How many prosecutors said, these are not cases we should handle. Its too dangerous. Too much classified information. We dont want to run the risk of acquittal, and we dont want to be responsible for more deaths in america. Its not our job. And so it wasnt just about the congressional ban on transfers from guantanamo. It was a very long narrative that started right after 9 11, the original military commissions document came out as a president ial order in the fall of 2001. It was taken out of the federal courts right away and should have been an out. An youth pouring or o of, no, this is of uses. Were protecting the system and the balance of power. Didnt happen. And after all those years thats how i see the story. So thats right. Thats why it comes back and and back and back. To me, the 9 11 trial is an incredibly important misstep, mishap, the fact we havent had it for americans. Trials are guilt and innocence, trials lay out a narrative. Trial are healing. They bring closure. And we have not had closure for 9 11 on some very deep psychological level that i cant name and frame and put in a scientific category. But i know it. I know that its a lack of trust in ourselves that is fundamental and a lack of trust in our courts and im glad you asked about the holder scene because it does matter to me and its what inspired me to go back and say, how could this have happened . We didnt have a trial what . Else within wrong with the rule of law and trust in our judiciary . Well, another thing that goes hand in hand with this and we see it in goon, again and again d in guantanamo, again and again, when theres hearing, the fighting and discussions and Legal Proceedings have to 2005 the secrecy, and seems that secrecy is very important to you and, again, thats a topic that you refer to throughout this wonderful book. So, cant we have secrecy at a time of National Crisis . Im trying to be the devil residents advocate here on this question. Guest we need secrecy. Secrecy, classification, more sophies ticklinged word, secrecies is essential to National Security but how much is really the issue and secrecy that shuts down the courts in a way they cant function as the used to, secrecy that takes away from the American People the right to really know what is going on, lets remember that when president Obama Took Office in issued a series of degrees on this second day in office the talk about transparency. He said im good going to bring transparency back. Youll know what goes on inside the government. It hasnt happened. But i would say about these cases is that when you good to court, there is a tremendous amount of classification already. These cases where before 9 11 or after 9 11, have always had classified and is the classified information procedures act which gives guidance and rules to jumps, prosecutors and defends, how to handle classified material. For me most part its work. Doesnt mean its not contest evidence by some attorneys on either side of the aisle bud work but worked for a long time and with hate. The secrecy issue at guantanamo has they cant get to beginning of the trial and its all about what is going to be preempt and what isnt, what i allowed to seen. What existed, what no longer exist independents the case of guantanamo, and one of the problems the secrecy after 9 11 that is not always there is some suspicion on the part of many that some that i share at all that secrecies is about things the United States government did they shouldnt have done, and that cant be the reason things are classified. Rather than sources and methods and information that would help our enemy. So, for example, torture. The fact that with know these individuals were tortured. That no a secret. What kind of torture we may have not know. Who did the torture . We why not know. But seems to me that cant be the reason. We cant have these trials. You mentionedder to tour and we have talking abouter to fewer for a long time. From your experience, from your you have been looking into the issues for a long time you. Looked into guantanamo and your first book was about guantanamo, and today its about the federal courts basically. In your understanding, is there a lot of overclassification in the federal system or in the guantanamo . And how this overclassification have an impact on the entire justice system. Guest yes. Im not the only person at all to think that overclassification is an issue, and you can see that the governments struggling with this. Recent live theyve dvded on a level of classification that will no longer be classified. I think thats a move in the right direction there are a number of federal judges who have said, when i looked at the materials that were classified, i was astonished and the rope is if you give a breadth to classification and youre the officer that has to decide whether to classify it or not, why wouldnt you classify it . Why would you take the risk that you made a misstake about something that somewhere down the road could have been the need nell hay stack. So there is a unwillingness to take on responsibility that is fed by a push towards classification and all these categories of classification, and so there has been tremendous overclassification and who knows what direction thats going to go in, because all of this depends on external events. Because between the media and the rumormongers, oh, they found out this, they found out that. Much like in the snowden case. And were entering a world where classification is actually harder because secrecy is harder because the way the internet works, the way sophisticated hackers work theres always a sense you have to have deeper and deeper mean of classification, not just the first living of, lets classify something. So what i would say about classification is it needs to be rethought within the context of 21st century technology. Think a lot of people in government are doing that but we have a long way to go and it will impact these trials. But there are also some basic things. I mean in guantanamo, i understand that the word termward water boarding is classified. And agencies of the government admitted to possibly. Part over the investigation that has been releavessed by the agencies and by these belts and by the u. S. Government, but are still considered classified in a guantanamo courtroom. How do you explain that . Guest i help and it as an its inappropriate its beyond inappropriate. You have a number of individuals who have either testified in congress or have written or spoken about things that in one context are classified and another context are not classified. So theres this chill fact youre. Better not talk about that. Even though this is Public Knowledge and people can google it. This is dangerous because i diminishes legitimacy of classification and not a good space to be in. We all kind of laugh about it because it seems kind of ridiculous, but its not it makes a mockery of what classification should be. Classification should be reserved for those things which are truly dangerous, truly secret, truly important, and there is a category of those things, and what happened this has hand in a lot of area, not just classification. The government so overreached that now people dont trust itself decisions, Development Trust the lines it is drawing between classified and unclassified for example and thats another thing i allude to in the book a lot, which is the withering away of trust in government to say, whats real, whats right, and what makes sense for us to go forward. How do you see see classification in federal courts. Guest classification in federal courts works well. Theres so many issues of all these terrorism cases involving classified information, and judges have figured out a way to happen and it the Defense Attorneys are not up in arms about it. There are cases where they wish things had gone their way, but theyve work it out. Thats what the judges role is. To say, look, you can have this but you cant have this. In the longest terrorism case we had, look off they litigated what could be shown in court when you were really dealing with individuals who have been tortured which no one in at the time, with information gotten through torture which people may or may not if have nope at the time, and they after tremendous appeal to Circuit Courts, twice, they came up with a system, that involved substitutes for the witnesses and the testimony very bait tim but verbatim and they came up with something and they had the trial and took years but didnt take 15 years like in the philadelphia trials like the 9 11 trials so even in an egregious case where the reasons are ung mentional they worked it out. So one of the biggest philosophical constructs after 9 11 is the balance between liberty and security, and the a lot of people have been advocating, you know what . Its fine to do all these kind of things if they keep us secure and can prevent another 9 11. From reading the book and knowing you personally, know youre big on that balance. How do you see the balance not base ode your opinion but based on your countless hours sitting in court, listening to National Security cases . Guest okay. So what i would say is that for the most part security has won in balance. There hasnt been a balance since 9 11. Security has overwhelmed courtrooms and juries and the media in terms of underring whatting at stake and that liberty has suffered tremendously. What i i will come back to that in terms of hough i think thats the case. What i think further is we focus too much on liberty and while the book shows while we were focusing on liberty versus security we should have been focused on justice verse security. We have lost thestring strength and finer and backbone of the judicial system in this context, including our laws in congress. So, i think when you think about the security versus liberty in the courtroom, a really good question for this book, and i say security is really won, you see a lot of cases where the First Amendment rights are really at issue. Its hard to tell how many individuals these are lower level cases. Not talk about the legal cases or people caught in the middle 0 an activity, the middle of a plot or after a plot. Not the embassy bombings, not talking about the subway attempted bombing. Were talking about individuals who are somewhere between aspirational and operational and talking about al qaeda, talking about isis, is dispositive in court. It comes across as being tantamount to guilt. So where is the overt act . How have we pushed back against the First Amendment. Thats an issue. Another issue that has come up is bigger, this Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment has been not just in the courtroom. The Fourth Amendment has been just beaten up since the beginning of the want or terror terror. Thats whatted ward snowden revelation has been about, inside the government, lawyers and others, the current head of the fbi, jim comey, jack goldsmith, professor at harvard, then a Justice Department lawyer, recognized that the surveillance authorities that were being used were not justified by the way they had been legally laid out by john yu and did their best jim comey was heroic, and mentioned the store in your book, heroic in standing up for this while he was the guest and he was willing to put his reputation and his career at stake to say, look, this we cant do this. This is a guy who is pro Law Enforcement, who understanding the security guest the director of the guest yes, unders the Security State and wanted to rein it back in and the Fourth Amendment still is not protected as protective as it used to be and well see where that conversation is headed. The patriot acted . Ed a year ago. And the surveillance parts of it in specific, and cut theres some push to bring back the powers. So what is necessary, what isnt necessary . We havent figured out as a country yet. Thats what i mean by security has won. Liberty mostly through the work of the aclu and other organizations has and ccr has sort of found its voice and its been lingering and building steam here and there, but it hasnt that recalibration that balance isnt there. I also have been thinking about this and not sure balance balance is good. We want balance. But i think the tension between the two is great, and i think its great for the country. There should be tension. National security people are supposed to think about how to keep the country safe, and Civil Liberties advocates and constitutional scholars and others are supposed to think about how to protect our constitution. And our laws. And you want tension. You dont want to oh, yeah, this is its got to be, its built into the fabric of who we are as a nation. You mentioned something about the cases of sewcalled aspirational. But from the other perspective, if you look at an individual who is trying to reach al qaeda or trying to reach isis, and the only tool you have is to send an undercover agent, the fbi to send an undercover agent or Law Enforcement or to have a source to deal with that, an informant to deal with them, and see if they are serious or not. Do you see that as entrapment or Law Enforcement doing their job utilizing only tool they have . Do you prefer that individual to be arrested before they commit the act or after the al qaeda reach out to them and then after they commit the act . Thats also a balance in to look at from a law. Perspective. What is your experience from reviewing many of these cases. What can you tell us about that . Guest this is the truly hard question because the answer is, theres a range of cases that are called, entrapment and so many terms. Guest but theres a range of cases and some are just shameful. And others are spectacular, and so you kind of where you see individuals who you see whats going on, there are larger players at force that Law Enforcement is tries to get at. Theres al intend intelligence portion and then theres guys you feel like could never have done anything on their own. So there are couple of ways to think about this. One, the fbi as you know, in the very beginning, and still somewhat today, although its better, does not have undercover agents who can go in and are either muslim, foreign born, arabic speaking, of what it is they need they dont have, and didnt have enough of those agents and so the reliance on informants, probably was not the best way to go about things because informants have something to gain whether its not being deported north paying paying not paying a fine of of what it is. Some of these informantes have turn out to be rare duplicitous creatures and so their testimony can fall apart on the stan because theyre who knows who is in control of them . 13,000 agents global and local portfolio. Want to make sure that youre not wasting your resources. They can go towards al qaeda. Its a judgment call may have to make sure you make it to the right way. On the statement you made. People would never be able to do it by yourself. They end up blowing themselves up. You will dont have to be smart to blow yourself up. When the fbi discovers an individual who is on that path and trying to be reach out yes reachout yes they might be mentally unstable if youre a supervisor. And somebody comes one of your agents this is the situation. Do you wait for it to come. Convince them to do a terrorist attack. They have to take into account. This is important today. You can just say watch the al qaeda guys. That is why theyre such a push inside the fbi and the department of Homeland Security for thinking about these individuals that are vulnerable to a message of violence. To think about these individuals in a way that feeds a diversionary program. It is something now even more than the al qaeda days as younger individuals. Even through associates. In a very young age. What is really needed and what they do not had yet is a program that can help these individuals realize this is not a path to go down in the other part of it is the average age of these individuals is 26 the age of most of them is 20. And is just a matter of getting through this late adolescent development with people who can deter individuals. And maybe some other kind of violence. We see it as a depth definable slice the violet brown movement. In a way that is very visible and powerful. Its something that can be focused on in this larger sphere. Do you want to be the person to take the chance. There are individuals who wish us harm. Is not being deterred and its called for violence in the United States. You probably have a better idea than all of us. They wouldve been known if it wouldve worked or not worked in this case. My general opinion is that in the cases that have been the most highprofile where they have actually gone weapons off of my themselves and wanted to commit acts the off ramp with the direction. Is there a case where there might have been an offer ramp. I think maybe that wouldve been the case. Again man was arrested for that. I think there are some cases where i think he it couldve happened. But how i see it will have the programs. Where in the midst of the very uncomfortable situations. We need to create a safe base. That they can come into on their own. They were helped it might sound naive. But we do have a choice. Its a very pessimistic side of you. Do you see any progress from the Obama Administration to the Obama Administration. A lot of people say that it has been executed in a very similar manner there is less different than the supporters at least from my view of things. I see it this way. Obama actually wanted to change things. I think holder did want to return the military commissions i think they were not up to the task. I think they failed time and time again politically. Its a little bit more murky in what they want and wanted what they didnt want. They used this surveillance powers and in the Drone Program which attacked in the book the Obama Administration has stepped this up. There is a way. Without judicial review. That is a very tasty area. And who is an american citizen. If you think about how this country was founded it was founded on many principles. Against a general warrant. You have suspicion for the warrant. Obama has not really cleaned this legacy up. From the bush administration. Having said that i think he has tried on a number of levels. And in his mind he has curtailed and constricted the weapon eyes drone killing which i think is executive decree. Sexy very interesting. Why they have embraced a lot of these in the Fourth Amendment expressed extended anger. Obama was the person who unleashed the report commissioned the report after the snowden revelation of five individuals who he trusted in the National Security state. On say look, tommy about this. Make an assessment. This program it doesnt work. And it is illegal. Basically thats what they said. The big take away was it doesnt work. They created the grounds for the argument that led to the patriot act. It is complicated where he stands on this. In my heart of hearts i think i take him at his word. At least he decided he didnt want to and indefinite attention. He gave a speech at the National Archives speech and he basically said among our possibilities here are indefinite detention. We still have it to this day. With the category of those who are too dangerous to release. Those are some of the best names. Individuals we had known about for a long time. But, i honestly believe that in terms of closing autonomy in ways that are not perfect i think he wants to do it its clear in the pace at which he is clearing for his administration and release these individuals taking them off that list of limbo not charged and not cleared for release that they are working at a hellbent pace to make this. I do think its a close. Heres what i think can happen. It crossed over 4 million per detainee per year to maintain one time and appeared that is a meaty number. For everyone release it goes up and up. When you have less than 20 individuals here and it could be less than that who are in the category who havent been cleared for release do you know how much its gonna cost per detainee. Think about it. Half the population yet again its going to go up potentially asked potentially and i dont believe congress will be able too and have the support and it has to has to be the cognition inside then you have all you had left is the detainees which is a small number they will put them there and put them in prison in the United States that will go and get dicey because what rights do they have et cetera. They might be able to be tried or they might plead in federal court. They plead to federal court charges. So i think and then ironically what you have. If the military which is not. The trial in a couple other extremely important trials that had resulted in death all over the world and have not been tried and if this country cannot figure out a way to have a federal Court Procedure i will be highly surprised. You make one of the things you mentioned is military commission. Can you clarify the difference military courts is the same as federal court in my understanding. That is a separate piece of law and has been tried and it can be tried everything from a serious offense to a nonserious one. There are some differences. When you get to the military commission has gone through tremendous evolution. The First Military commission was in 2006. It was in response to the Supreme Court. Congress has to create these. And then obama when he regards them in 2009. And what the heads of the military commission now say is look, these are as close as we can possibly make them. The only difference is that we have certain procedures based on classification and hearsay is a little broader than it would be elsewhere. You have the things builtin but it turns out that these military commissions are not like article three courts. Where the judge does not had control of the courtroom where there are other forces at play it is just a mess and the reason its a mess is the nature of the evidence in these trials is extremely hard to present in court and so you say why would it be different in federal court. Do you know how many cases where there hasnt been a tremendous amount of evidence i think there is a way to do this i think there are issues about the Death Penalty and whether or not these individuals agree and if there were no Death Penalty. This is not the way to go about it. Its a mockery after 911. It is just not fair or good. Perhaps the biggest thing i learned when i was writing my book was a thing i thought should be allowed but its actually law. Like the fact you can have there are things that you really cant say or do that is considered or can be interpreted as over acts whether you see that in the law itself you see how it plays out. The second thing is that judges really try hard to talk to juries about how to think about the law understanding that is so difficult and its almost like the juries come back with questions all the time. Thats another thing i found out which was the intricacy of the relationship between a judge and a jury is fascinating. I think a real shining gem in the american system ive also seen the opposite which is judges who clearly dont want a terrace in their room. One take away is how powerful judges are he was realize you do want somebody to have that kind of control in the courtroom. Another very interesting thing is the degree the one exception that stood out was a Supreme Court. They stand up and they make the commissions saying you cant do this. You cant detain a person this way. What shocked me about all of this was that the Supreme Court finally rules in 2008 that the detainees have the right to challenge their detention in court. That is a clear sign about rights and liberties and it goes to the District Court in dc and they clear for release a number of individuals. And then a Circuit Court overturns them. Like what kind of decision. Why would you trust this evidence. That was a surprise. The degree to which the Supreme Court said what they said and it was like okay you said it but we are the Circuit Court. I found that conversation surprising. It tucks that we the court system and how powerful the judges are. Have he married the two together. They are powerful that they stepped away wherever they could from the issues at hand. Network when i can to discuss that. Look at what happens in the case. It was in the socalled dirty bomber. And so the government clearly wants it that way. And finally, the judge takes it and says we agree with the government. Knowing its gonna go to the Supreme Court. The white house realizes that the Supreme Court might say you cant hold him here and they go to the Fourth Circuit and they say if you revoke your decision. The reason they were willing to do that is they have already had several years being able to say and to judges look, were telling you dont do this. If you know what we knew when were neck and a share everything you but we know dont go there. The judge that was there at the time they said no im not revoking my opinion. In the opinion said where this can allow him to be released into to federal custody. Think about that. You need to but would change your mind you talk about government overreach. You talk about torture being committed by the government. You talk about a lot of sand and disheartening issues in this book. Do you think we need a account ability to move forward . Yes. I think the lack of accountability its not because we dont like that guy. Im so who should be held accountable. I dont think it should happen again. It weakens our confidence in ourselves. Its not good thing from a perspective. It compromises who we are. And as donald trump says we can go back to waterboarding when we need it we dont really know how bad our torture policy was because we still havent seen the report. Accountability is everything. They should be chastened and its very important so that is one thing. The agencies as you will know you know the agencies and the fbi walked away from this. They need to be held accountable in some way. If this happens again or whatever it is. It should be held accountable. Government officials should be held accountable. The fact that this was not just someone who close her eyes. Torture is has affected the big part of the book. It has affected much more than we know. It has affected case after case abuse in american circumstances or something that happened at black sites abroad. It was instrumental in those cases. They were charged in federal court. It has infected so much of our court system. It is the poison that was let out that has diminished it and thats why the military commissions cant function. Now we have them. They still dont work. I know from personal experience it does not work. Youre talking about a larger harm to our relationship with our allies. It is the original sin. And it doesnt stop. Think about all of the individuals who were tortured to head family know what happened to them. It has harmed our relationship. Look at all of the videos that are sent out by terrorist groups imagine that. So it has harmed us. The harm of this torture program and some accountability would restore in terms of our leadership on issues like human rights. But it would also free our courts from this which they tried to as good as citizens maneuver around make room for step apart from and it will cleanse and i think on some levels. I see accountability for the torture. Very sad that we were too scared to go down that road. Were to go forward not back. You cant go forward. Think about who we really want to be as a people and they can can be as a people that we tortured. It doesnt work like that. Some Officials Say that it wears awarded somebody. The cia doesnt its not. What is your comment on Something Like this. In he knows. Its just not true no matter who does it. As you know and you had written and spoken you cant have torture in your back pocket that is why we have poured trillions of dollars into our intelligence capabilities. They are actually trained in professionals. If we think we have an extra tool that is barbaric and useless as it turns out what does it do in compromising our other techniques. It is just the wrong thing to do as a human being on this earth. They all refuse to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture. It doesnt seem that its getting any better. I will probably be ten times worse. Its never going to swing back to that. Its a given. Youre right. We dont have to go all the other way. There has to be safeguards and it begins with the commander and chief power. They are based on an exalted vision of what the president could be. It is, located weve yet to see lawyers involved in government who can really make as much headway as they want. James comey did his best but they never quite got to the end of turning back. Also the torture program. They did a lot to try to stop at least one form or another. How do you assess the successes and the failures in the last 15 years. We started the war of al qaeda. We had been combating that since way before. But officially the war was declared against the terror network. And now we have isis and a lot of other affiliates. With everything that you mentioned do you see that we had been more secure less secure as a nation is there things that we need to do in order to make ourselves more secure and more confident in facing the threats ahead. Were much more secure. For all of those tax dollars thats been pushed into our military et cetera i think we are more sick care. I here. I think there were tremendous glitches in the system i dont think one of those was the federal courts and the way they work you will not see me disagree. I think in that way we are safer. Hey guess what you are safer. Working to keep you vigilant. When i can to do xyz because we dont need too. We are to have rules and regulations and were never cannot just do things secretly behind the scenes because we think its important. But we are safer. In the recent of that its because what we did legally. The nature of our own society. Just from my perspective. Weve a nation of 350 million. They have gone to the conflict is on. They had 500 away smaller country. Even we have the muslim community. There is something that were doing right the because down the justice system. It is our job now is here to make sure that we dont become france that we are inclusive in a way but we can do it. Weve done it before. The good news is that a lot of the structures of government there is going to be a new program. You long for sensing lets had Civil Society take care of this lets function as a nation. And lets understand that there has to be a sense that you can buy long you have to want to vote. You have to be part of the civic framework. If it will to say